coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  By six judgments of the Banja Luka Court of First Instance (“the Court of First Instance”) of 17 February 2000, 25 October 2000, 12 December 2008, 8 July 2003, 11 February 2003 and 31 August 1999, which became final on 15 May 2001, 18 March 2004, 12 January 2009, 30 June 2005 and 4 December 2000 respectively, the Republika Srpska (an Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina) was ordered to pay, within 15 days, the following amounts in respect of war damage together with default interest at the statutory rate:
(i)  BAM 21,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,300 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 2,350 in respect of legal costs to the Đurićs;
(ii)  BAM 31,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 3,570 in respect of legal costs to the Bošnjaks;
(iii)  BAM 28,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 4,470.60 in respect of legal costs to the Bojanićs and Ms Banjac;
(iv)  BAM 40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 2,835 in respect of legal costs to the Čolićs;
(v)  BAM 19,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and BAM 600 in respect of legal costs to Mr Lazarević;
(vi)  BAM 14,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, BAM 2,500 in respect of pecuniary damage and BAM 1,810 in respect of legal costs to the Komljenovićs.
6.  The Court of First Instance issued writs of execution (rješenje o izvršenju) on 24 August 2001, 16 August 2004, 4 April 2011, 8 August 2007, 27 April 2009 and 28 March 2001.
7.  The applicants complained of the non-enforcement to the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Constitutional Court”).
8.  On 16 January 2013 the Constitutional Court found a breach of Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in the cases of the Đurićs, Mr Lazarević, the Bojanićs and Ms Banjac. In line with its established practice in cases of this type, it refused the applicantsʼ compensation claims, holding that a finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
9.  The cases of the Čolićs, the Komljenovićs and the Bošnjaks are still pending before the Constitutional Court.
10.  On 10 April 2008, 12 November 2010, 13 December 2010 and 18 July 2008 respectively the Đurićs, the Bošnjaks, the Čolićs, Mr Lazarević and the Komljenovićs were paid legal costs and default interest.
11.  Under the new settlement plan (see paragraph 16 below) the Đurićsʼ case was scheduled for enforcement in 2014; the Bošnjaksʼ in 2019; the Bojanićsʼ and Ms Banjacʼs in 2030; the Čolićsʼ in 2024; Mr Lazarevićʼs in 2026; and the Komljenovićsʼ in 2017.
4.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Kars.
5.  On 27 April 2002 the applicant, who was seventeen years old at the time, was arrested by police officers in Kars, on suspicion of robbery. On the same day, he was examined by a doctor at the Kars State Hospital, and no signs of injury were reported.
6.  At the police station, the applicant was allegedly forced to make self-incriminating statements. During his interrogation, the applicant claims that the police officers pulled his ears and he was beaten and subjected to falaka (beating on the soles of his feet).
7.  On 29 April 2002, following the complaint of the applicant’s representative, the Kars Public Prosecutor went to the police station to see the applicant. According to his report, there were several widespread bruises on the soles of the applicant’s feet and oedema behind his ears. The public prosecutor also noted that the applicant had stated that he had been ill‑treated and that he could identify the police officers who had ill‑treated him. The same day, the applicant identified the four police officers who had ill‑treated him. Following his interrogation by the public prosecutor, the applicant was released.
8.  The applicant was subsequently taken to the Kars State Hospital for a medical examination. According to the doctor’s report, there were several scars on his left arm, bruises and oedema behind his left ear, and bruises on both of his palms and on the soles of his feet. It was noted that his injuries would heal in five days.
9.  On 1 May 2002 the Kars Public Prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against four police officers, accusing them of ill-treating the applicant under Article 245 of the former Criminal Code. The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party.
10.  On 9 May 2002 the Kars Criminal Court declared that it lacked jurisdiction, holding that the proceedings should be initiated before the Assize Court on account of torture under Article 243 of the former Criminal Code.
11.  The proceedings therefore resumed before the Kars Assize Court. At the end of the trial, on 15 June 2010 the Kars Assize Court, on the basis of the evidence in the case file, found the police officers guilty of inflicting torture pursuant to Article 243 of the former Criminal Code. The court found it established that the police officers had intentionally ill-treated the applicant to extract a confession. It accordingly sentenced each of the police officers to one year imprisonment under Article 243 of the former Criminal Code, and banned them from public service for six months. Having regard to the good attitude of the police officers during the trial, the court then reduced their sentence to ten months’ imprisonment and five months’ ban from public service. It subsequently suspended the pronouncement of the judgment in accordance with Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in İzmir.
5.  On 15 May 2001, the applicant had cardiac surgery in Ege University Hospital in İzmir and her heart valve was replaced by a mechanical valve. The applicant was insured by the Retired Civil Servants’ Fund (emekli sandığı) and all her medical expenses were covered by the insurance.
6.  Following the operation, the applicant’s heart condition did not improve and she suffered physiologically as a result of a disturbing noise coming from the mechanical heart valve.
7.  In 2003, the applicant found out from the press that the type of mechanical valve used in her operation was banned by the Ministry of Health because of serious production defects.
8.  Being convinced that she was subjected to negligence, the applicant decided to bring compensation proceedings against the Ministry of Health, the Retired Civil Servant’s Fund, the Ege University Hospital and the doctors who operated on her.
9.  In October 2003, the applicant applied to the İzmir Administrative Court and requested 250,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 153,000 euros (EUR)). The applicant requested legal aid for the court fees and submitted a certificate attesting to her indigence. On 5 November 2004 the İzmir Administrative Court, without giving any specific reason, decided that the applicant did not fulfil the prerequisite to be eligible for legal aid which was required under Article 465 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). On 21 December 2004 and 17 February 2005 respectively, the applicant was notified that she had to pay TRL 3,364,900,00 (approximately EUR 20,600) in court fees within one month in order for the proceedings to continue, and that failure to do so would result in the discontinuation of the proceedings.
10.  The applicant failed to pay the court fees. On 20 April 2005 the İzmir Administrative Court decided to discontinue the proceedings.
5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Schalchen.
6.  On 8 September 1999, the Salzburg Federal Police Authority (Bundespolizeidirektion) issued fifteen preliminary penal orders (Strafverfügung) against the applicant for infringements of the Motor Vehicle Act (Kraftfahrgesetz) and EU Regulations No. 3820/85 and 3821/85. On 23 September 1999, the applicant lodged objections (Einspruch) to all fifteen orders.
7.  On 27 December 2000, the Salzburg Federal Police Authority issued six penal orders (Straferkenntnis) against the applicant. On 16 January 2001, the applicant lodged appeals against all six penal orders with the Salzburg Independent Administrative Panel (Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat).
8.  On 4 December 2001, after having held an oral hearing, the Salzburg Independent Administrative Panel sentenced the applicant to pay a fine of a total amount of 21,500 Austrian Schillings (ATS) (approx. 1,562 Euros (EUR)), and to contribute ATS 6,450 (approx. EUR 469) to the costs of the first and second instance proceedings. It discontinued the proceedings concerning one of the penal orders. On 24 January 2002, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) against that decision.
9.  On 12 September 2006, the Administrative Court quashed the appeal decision.
10.  On 3 January 2007, the Independent Administrative Panel issued a fresh decision and quashed four of the penal orders. As concerns the remaining penal order, it sentenced the applicant to pay a fine of EUR 210, and to contribute EUR 21 to the costs of the proceedings. It took into account the length of the proceedings as a mitigating circumstance when determining the amount of the fine.
11.  On 6 February 2007, the applicant lodged a complaint pursuant to Article 144 of the Federal Constitution with the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof). He complained about the length of the proceedings and lack of an effective remedy and asked for just satisfaction.
12.  On 10 June 2008, the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the complaint on the grounds that it did not raise an important legal question.
13.  On 30 July 2008, the applicant applied for his complaint to be referred to the Administrative Court, which was done on 8 August 2008. On 3 September 2008, the Administrative Court requested him to specify his complaint. He provided the supplementary information on 6 October 2008.
14.  On 24 October 2008, the Administrative Court refused to deal with the complaint pursuant to Section 33a Administrative Court Act, because the fine imposed did not exceed EUR 750.
The decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 17 November 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1976.
5.  On 29 December 2009 a police investigator initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and charged him with fraudulent appropriation of property. On the same day the applicant was placed on the list of wanted persons.
6.  On 27 April 2010 the applicant was arrested and informed of the charges.
7.  On 29 April 2010 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was ordered by a court.
8.  On 25 June 2010 the applicant was released under a written undertaking not to abscond.
9.  In February 2011 the case was referred to the Dzerzhynskyy District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) for trial.
10.  On 4 April 2011 the District Court held a preliminary hearing in the case. Following the request of the prosecutor, it ordered that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should be changed and that the applicant should be placed in pre-trial detention. The court, paying regard to the fact that the applicant denied his guilt, considered that the applicant could influence witnesses, conceal or remove traces and evidence of the crime. It stated that the applicant was charged with a serious crime and his actual place of residence did not coincide with his registered address. It therefore concluded that the applicant could behave negatively and his isolation was necessary. The court noted that the applicant was of middle age, he was not a disabled person, he did not suffer from chronic illnesses, he had a family and a minor son, and that he worked as director of a company.
11.  On a number of occasions during the trial the applicant requested the District Court to change the preventive measure in his respect and release him.
12.  On 5 July, 19 August, 23 November 2011 and 17 January 2012 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s requests maintaining the impugned preventive measure. The court referred to its decision of 4 April 2011 and repeated that the applicant’s actual and registered addresses did not coincide, he was charged with a serious crime, and that there were grounds to believe that the applicant could behave negatively, if released. The court also repeated that the applicant was of middle age, he was not a disabled person, he did not suffer from chronic illnesses, he had a family and a minor son, and that he worked as director of a company. The court then found that there had been no grounds to change the preventive measure for health reasons or to apply bail; furthermore, the applicant showed no remorse and had refused to admit his guilt.
13.  On 30 January 2012 the District Court found the applicant guilty of fraudulent appropriation of property and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment and ordered confiscation of his property.
14.  The Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal and the Higher Specialised Civil and Criminal Court of Ukraine upheld the judgment of 30 January 2012 on 9 April 2013 and 6 February 2014 respectively.
4.  The applicant was born in 1979. At the time of the introduction of the application, he was detained in the Kırıkkale F-type prison.
5.  On 24 April 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police officers from the anti-terror branch of the Istanbul police.
6.  On 30 April 1999 the applicant was taken before a judge who ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
7.  On 6 May 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and two other persons charging them under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code with having carried out activities on behalf of the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation) for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory.
8.  In 2004, pursuant to Law no. 5190 abolishing State Security Courts, the case against the applicant was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court.
9.  On 7 May 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to aggravated life imprisonment. It further established, in the light of a number of expert reports, witness testimonies and the statements of the accused, that the applicant and two other persons had planned and executed the bombing of a shopping centre in protest at the arrest of the leader of the PKK. The bombing had caused the death of thirteen innocent people and the injury of numerous persons.
10.  On 7 May 2009 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
11.  The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time can be found in the case of Şefik Demir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 51770/07, §§ 11‑15, 16 October 2012.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Čajetina.
5.  He was employed by Raketa-Putnički Saobraćaj AD, a company based in Užice (hereinafter “the debtor”).
6.  Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees, the applicant brought a civil claim, seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions.
7.  On 10 July 2007 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Užice rendered a decision ordering the debtor to pay him certain sum. On 7 September 2007 this decision became final.
8.  Due to the debtor’s failure to fulfil its obligations from this decision, the applicant submitted an enforcement request. On 17 March 2009 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Požega issued an enforcement order to that effect.
9.  On 12 July 2010 the Commercial Court (Privredni sud) in Užice opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor. As a result, all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were terminated.
10.  The applicant duly reported his claim based on the above-mentioned court decision to the insolvency administration.
11.  On 8 June 2011 the court accepted the applicant’s claim.
12.  On 31 July 2014 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the decision at issue had been partially enforced in the insolvency proceedings.
13.  The insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor are still ongoing.
14.  The debtor, which operated as a socially-owned company, was privatised on 27 December 2002.
15.  On 17 July 2007 the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations.
16.  Following the annulment of the debtor’s privatisation the State owned 58.18% of shares in the company.
17.  On 11 December 2008 the State sold its shares to a private company.
5.  All the applicants were employed by Raketa-Putnički Saobraćaj AD, a company based in Užice (hereinafter “the debtor”).
6.  Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees, the applicants brought numerous separate civil claims, seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions.
7.  The applicants obtained final court decisions ordering the debtor to pay them certain sums. The essential information as to the domestic proceedings in respect of each application is indicated in the annexed table.
8.  On 12 July 2010 the Commercial Court (Privredni sud) in Užice opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor. As a result, all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were terminated.
9.  The applicants duly reported their respective claims based on the above-mentioned court decisions to the insolvency administration.
10.  On 8 June 2011 the court accepted the applicants’ claims.
11.  On 29 July 2014 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that some of the decisions at issue had been partially enforced in the insolvency proceedings.
12.  The insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor are still ongoing.
13.  The debtor, which operated as a socially-owned company, was privatised on 27 December 2002.
14.  On 17 July 2007 the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations.
15.  Following the annulment of the debtor’s privatisation the State owned 58.18% of shares in the company.
16.  On 11 December 2008 the State sold its shares to a private company.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Karan.
5.  He was employed by Raketa-Putnički Saobraćaj AD, a company based in Užice (hereinafter “the debtor”).
6.  Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees, the applicant brought three separate civil claims, seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions.
7.  On 31 August 2007 and 19 September 2007, respectively, the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Užice rendered decisions ordering the debtor to pay the applicant certain sums. Both decisions became final on 9 October 2007.
8.  Due to the debtor’s failure to fulfil its obligations from these decisions, the applicant submitted an enforcement request. On 15 May 2009 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Požega issued an enforcement order to that effect.
9.  On 23 July 2009 the Municipal Court in Užice rendered a decision in the third set of civil proceedings brought by the applicant ordering the debtor to pay him an additional sum from the outstanding debt. On 2 September 2009 this decision became final.
10.  Due to the debtor’s failure to fulfil its obligations from this decision, the applicant submitted an enforcement request. On 29 September 2009 the Municipal Court in Požega issued an enforcement order to that effect.
11.  On 12 July 2010 the Commercial Court (Privredni sud) in Užice opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor. As a result, all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were terminated.
12.  The applicant duly reported his claim based on the above-mentioned court decisions to the insolvency administration.
13.  On 8 June 2011 the court accepted the applicant’s claim.
14.  The insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor are still ongoing.
15.  The debtor, which operated as a socially-owned company, was privatised on 27 December 2002.
16.  On 17 July 2007 the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations.
17.  Following the annulment of the debtor’s privatisation the State owned 58.18% of shares in the company.
18.  On 11 December 2008 the State sold its shares to a private company.
5.  The applicants were born in 1947, 1981, 1982 and 1988 respectively and live in Novi Pazar.
6.  The applicants’ late wife and mother, Ms Fatima Nuhović was employed by “Raška” Viskozna predionica DOO Novi Pazar (hereinafter “the debtor”), which was, at the relevant time, a company predominantly comprised of socially-owned capital.
7.  On 13 July 2004 the Municipal Court (Opštinski sud) in Novi Pazar ordered the debtor to pay Ms Fatima Nuhović certain amount on account of salary arrears and social insurance contributions, plus the costs of the civil proceedings. By 7 February 2006 this judgment became both final and enforceable.
8.  On 3 April 2006, upon Ms Nuhović’s request to that effect, the Municipal Court in Novi Pazar ordered the enforcement of the judgment of 13 July 2004 by means of a bank transfer and ordered the debtor to pay Ms Nuhović the enforcement costs. This judgment became final on an unspecified date.
9.  On 25 December 2011 Ms Fatima Nuhović passed away. Inheritance proceedings have been instituted shortly thereafter before the Novi Pazar First Instance Court. Those proceedings are still pending.
10.  On 25 October 2013 the Commercial Court (Trgovinski sud) in Kraljevo opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor (St. 17/2013). On 5 January 2014 the applicants submitted their claims for the payment of the amount ordered by the judgment of 13 July 2004. The insolvency proceedings are still pending.